The Adam Mockler Show - Trump RUNS AWAY after HE GETS BEAT

Episode Date: April 1, 2026

Adam Mockler breaks down a dramatic moment as Trump leaves the Supreme Court after justices, including conservatives, cast doubt on his birthright citizenship argument. As the case unfolds, the legal challenges are raising major constitutional questions. Click below for premium Adam Mockler content 👉 https://www.youtube.com/@adammockler/join 👉 https://adammockler.com/subscribe JOIN THE COMMUNITY: Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/AdamMockler/ Discord: https://discord.gg/y9yzMU3Gff Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/adammockler/ Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/adammockler.com/ Twitter: https://x.com/adammocklerr/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@adammockler Contact: [e-mail] Business inquiries: [e-mail] Adam Mockler - Mockler Media LLC Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

All right, Trump is mad. Just as quickly as he showed up to the Supreme Court this morning to listen to their arguments, he was gone. He vanished. He walked out after the arguments were not going his way after being the first ever sitting U.S. President to attend oral arguments from the Supreme Court. Now, this is a high-stakes case for Donald Trump and the people around him, because it links back to an executive order that he signed on the very first day in office on January 21st of 2025. This is the birthright citizenship case that Donald Trump attended today, and I want to break down how some of the arguments went. I want to break down Donald Trump's livid reaction after it did not go his way, and just give some broad, brief views on birthright citizenship and what this would mean for a lot of Americans, a lot of young Americans. There is actually a whole class of younger Americans who would have their citizenship immediately stripped away. And it's not just one group. It is recurring.

So about 250,000 newborn babies would be denied citizenship per year, and that is on top of the people already targeted from this executive order. Now, I know that's scary, but the good news is the Supreme Court is not buying what the Trump administration is selling. Even the conservative members on the Supreme Court, the conservative justices were really not buying this birthright citizenship argument because it goes against all of the foundations of the Constitution. We're going to break this all down. Make sure you drop a like. Subscribe to the Atomography to help us get to 2 million subscribers. I will be on CNN News Night tonight at 10 p.m. Eastern to react to Donald Trump's Iran speech. We'll be doing a special two-hour panel to react to the speech, so I'll be on tonight, and I'll be on tomorrow.

Mark it in your calendars, and let's just jump in from the beginning. So Donald Trump showed up to the courthouse at about 10 a.m. He left after about 90 minutes and was pissed off. After watching a majority of the justices cast doubt on the constitutionality. of his bid to end birthright citizenship for 90 minutes, Trump left the Supreme Court. Again, this was after the majority of the justices were very doubtful of this. He then posted on truth social afterwards. We are the only country in the world stupid enough to allow, quote, birthright citizenship.

Okay, first of all, that's not true. Many countries allow this. Number two, it's not stupid. It's not that we're stupid. It's that this is a foundation of the Constitution. This amendment was passed in the 1800s. And since then, it has been a foundation of America. Not only does Donald Trump want to erode that foundation,

but in fact, he would be inversing a longstanding beauty of America. He wants to make sure that our immigration policy is racialized in such a way that white people from South Africa can come over here and easily immigrate. But if you're already in the United States and you're the wrong skin color, if you're like Haitian, for example, he will remove your temporary protected status. so you have a higher chance of being deported. Donald Trump is trying to craft a white majority in the United States, and this is very, very clear.

Honestly, to be honest, I don't even think Trump cares about it as much as Stephen Miller does. Trump isn't ideological in the same way that Stephen Miller is. Stephen Miller, he goes to sleep and he wakes up thinking about having a white America or whatever he wants, right? Donald Trump only cares about his own legacy and narcissism and just listens to Stephen Miller as a means to an end. Friend of the show, Isaiah Martin points out, Trump literally left the Supreme Court because his argument was getting smoked.

The people he appointed literally looked him in the eye and said absolutely not. Grateful to have K, B, J, on the court, as well as others, to embarrass this president to his face. Remember, he said right after, we are the only country in the world stupid enough to our birthright citizenship. This is like when you lose in a baseball game as a kid and you start kicking the rocks around you, you start kicking the floor, you're like stupid. This is also stupid, but this is the president of the United States. And he's tweeting like this while he's truiting like this while he's preparing for a speech tonight about Iran. Let's check out some of the largest exchanges that went viral from this Supreme Court arguments. So John Sauer, the Solicitor General, who is representing the Trump case, gets completely rolled by none other than John Roberts right here.

Sauer says, we're in a new world. There's 8 billion people who could come over here at any moment with one. one plane ride. And John Robert says it's a new world, but it's the same constitution. A really beautiful moment. Take a listen. Their interpretation has made a mess of the provision. Well, it certainly wasn't a problem in the 19th century. No, but of course, we're in a new world now, as Justice Alito pointed out to, where 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child as a U.S. citizen.

Well, it's a new world. It's the same constitution. It is. And as Justice Scalia said, I think in the case that Justice Alito was referring to, you've got a constitutional provision that addresses certain evils and it should be extended to reasonably comparable evils. He said that about statutory interpretation. I think the same principle applies here. There was an audible pause, an audible pause when Justice John Roberts hit him with that Constitution line. An audible pause, listen. Plain right away from having a child is a U.S. citizen. Well, it's a new world. It's the same constitution.

It is. Genuinely, an audible pause when that happened. Okay, let's go on to this next argument, breaking. Scotis Justice Amy Coney-Barritt, who was appointed by Donald Trump. I'll remind you. He was chosen by Donald Trump. Scotis Justice Amy Coney-Barrant now appears skeptical of striking down birthright citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Quote, I can imagine this being messy in some applications.

What if you don't know who the parents are? She makes a very good point about not knowing who the parents are and then being in a very legal limbo situation. Okay, and let's talk about its applications. So, you know, there are some, I can imagine it being messy in some applications. So what would you do with what the common law called foundlings? You know, the thing about this is then you have to adjudicate if you're looking at parents, and if you're looking at parents domicile, then you have to adjudicate both residents and intent to stay. What if you don't know who the parents are?

I think there are marginal cases. That one, I think, has the benefit of being addressed in 1401F where it talks about finance. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, but what about the Constitution? Under the Constitution, it's domicile is a constitutional standard in all kinds of other situations. Diversity jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction. Well, yeah, and personal jurisdiction, I mean 1332, diversity jurisdiction. And the thing is, it has to be litigated because it turns on intent. And both the virtue of both use solely and you sanguinness, whichever one you pick, it's a bright line rule.

How would it work? How would you adjudicate these cases? You're not going to know at the time of birth for some people, whether they, have the intent to stay or not, including, including U.S. citizens, by the way. I mean, what if you have someone who is living in Norway with their husband and family, but is still a U.S. citizen, comes home and has her child here and goes back? How do we know whether the child is a U.S. citizen because the parent didn't have an intent to stay? I'd say make two points, one practical, one legal. The practical point is under the terms of this executive order. You don't have to

because the executive order turns on objectively verifiable things, which is immigration status. Are you lawfully present but temporarily present or do you have an illegal status? So those kind of like, you know, taking evidence, so to speak, under subjective intent wouldn't be done. And as to the constitutional point, obviously domicile is baked into a lot of constitutional and legal concept. Yeah, the reality here is that Trump's people are struggling to make this argument. The U.S. Solicitor General, who's arguing on behalf of the Trump administration, is struggling in this situation. The justices are questioning him specifically about the definition of the word domicile, because core to the government argument is that only children of immigrants who are domiciled in the United States should

receive birthright citizenship. So then they're asking, what does domiciled mean? What do you mean if somebody temporarily comes and then has a baby and then leaves with no intention to stay? Is that domicile? Like, what does this mean? And he doesn't have a good answer and he's basically conceding that this will get very, very messy. And the reality is, this has already been answered before. If I pull up what the 14th Amendment says, I think it's very important to just look at it straight up. It says all persons, not all citizens, not all children of XYZ, all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law

which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. It is very, very clear, and there was even a case that tested this called Wong Kim Ark. In 1898, Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents. Now, his Chinese immigrant parents were barred from ever becoming U.S. citizens because of the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act. They were essentially more loyal to the Chinese government due to their history. So after he went to China at like 20 years old, he was born in the United States and he lived in the United States for 20 years, no problem. He goes to China and he tries to reenter and they denied his reentry and said, you are not a U.S. citizen, you can never be a U.S. citizen. So he sued, and it went up to the

Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court ruled in Wong Kim Arc's favor. They said that 14th Amendment granted birthright citizenship to any person, any person born in the United States, regardless of race, regardless of the status of their parents. They identified two narrow exceptions that I'll read here. Number one, children born of alien enemies and hostile occupation, and two, children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state. Those are the only exceptions, and Donald Trump is losing this case because his lawyers are making a losing argument. It's really that simple. They're going to lose this case. They do not have the legal grounds to overturn birthright citizenship. Birthright citizenship has been codified by Congress. It is illegal to do what Donald Trump is doing, and it honestly makes for a

worse America. Even beyond the legality of it all, I know I've been talking about the legality throughout this video. The reality is immigrants come to America. and they create. Immigrants come to America, and if they have a child in America, they're very likely here to stay and here to help this country. My grandpa immigrated from Syria in the 80s, and he had a child here, my dad. And my grandpa has started up a business

that now employs dozens and dozens of families. He provides for dozens and dozens of families who rely on his business. And a lot of the people that are in the Muslim community back in Indiana where I grew up are heart surgeons or doctors. I mean, I can think of multiple people right now who are heart surgeons and their kids ended up becoming dentists or something. So immigrants help our country. And if an immigrant hates America and wants to commit a bunch of crimes, sure, deport them.

I don't care. But what we're saying here, what we're doing here, this is fundamentally un-American. What Trump is proposing here is fundamentally against the Constitution of America and I'm going to leave it there. I love you all. I'll see you in the next video. Peace out.